Back
2025 MarsdenLR 3451
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
JOSEPH IRUTHAYAM – Appellant
Versus
CHANG YOON FOO – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: WA-24NCC-757-07/2022]
A party cannot re-litigate issues already determined by courts; the doctrine of res judicata applies, and due process must be observed through proper appellate channels.
Headnote:(A) Rules of Court 2012 - O 14 - Evidence Act 1950 - Summary Judgment - An advocate's plea to set aside a Summary Judgment and declare letters as null was denied. The Court reaffirmed the principle of res judicata, emphasizing that issues already decided cannot be re-litigated, and that the parties must follow proper appellate procedures. (Paras 40, 60, 62)
(B) Due process and fair hearing - The court ruled that the Plaintiff's failure to join Profound as a party constituted a breach that rendered earlier judgments valid. (Paras 19, 60)
Facts of the case:
The Plaintiff, a solicitor, sought to overturn a Summary Judgment favoring the Defendant concerning a disputed amount stemming from a Consent Judgment without proper appeal. (Paras 1, 13, 18)
Findings of Court:
The pleading for reliefs was fundamentally flawed and the request to set aside the Summary Judgment was dismissed, as the earlier Court decisions were affirmed and remained binding. (Paras 39, 64, 66)
Issues: Whether the Plaintiff could seek a declaration against the Summary Judgment and the lawful authority for the Defendant's claims. (Paras 1, 39)
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the Plaintiff's arguments and evidence did not constitute new material to overturn prior decisions and that the matters were already conclusively adjudicated. (Paras 46, 60)
Result: Originating Summons dismissed with costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the case background and context. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. details about the consent judgment and subsequent payments. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. plaintiff's reliefs and the status of the summons. (Para 15 , 16) |
| 4. plaintiff's arguments against the legitimacy of the summary judgment. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 5. defendant's counterarguments regarding the plaintiff’s claims. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 6. court's analysis on the flaws in the plaintiff's reliefs. (Para 33 , 34 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 7. court's finding on res judicata and procedural issues. (Para 42 , 45 , 60 , 61) |
| 8. conclusion and dismissal of the originating summons. (Para 59 , 63 , 64) |
[1] This Originating Summons concerns the Plaintiff's application seeking various declaratory orders to essentially set aside a Summary Judgment obtained by the Defendant against the Plaintiff in the Sessions Court and subsequently upheld by the High Court on appeal ("this Originating Summons").
[2] During the course of these proceedings, on 16 March 2023, the original Defendant, Chang Yoke Phor, passed away. On 3 August 2023, this Court substituted the original Defendant with Chang Yoon Foo, who is the executor of the estate of the deceased Chang Yoke Phor. For the purpose of clarity and to avoid confusion, all references to "the Defendant" in this Judgment refer to the original Defendant, Chang Yoke Phor, unless otherwise stated.
A] Salient Background Facts
[3] The Plaintiff is an advocate and solicitor of the High Court of Malaya and practises under the law firm of M/s Joseph Iruthayam & Co
[4] The Defendant was a director of Profound Projects Sdn Bhd ("Profound") but had resigned from his position. The Defendant was never a shareholder of Profound. The Defendant is a general contractor.
[5] Sometime in February 2016, Profound appointed the Plaintiff's firm as their solicitors to take up a civil action against Pembinaan Megah Ikhlas Sdn Bhd ("Pembinaan Megah") and Gabungan Strategik Sdn Bhd ("Gabungan Strategik") to recover outstanding fees for construction work done by Profound (Kuala Lumpur Civil Suit No: WA-22C-8-02/2016 (Profound v. Pembinaan Megah and Gabungan Strategik) ("KLSC Suit No WA-22C-8-02/2016").
[6] Pursuant to a Consent Judgment dated 17 January 2017 in KLSC Suit No. WA-22C-8-02/2016, Pembinaan Megah agreed to pay Profound the sum of RM1.5 million to settle Profound's claim ("Consent Judgment"). The legal fees were agreed at RM300,000.00.
[7] Following the Consent Judgment, a sum of RM1.5 million was deposited into the Plaintiff's account. Terence Chong Tzin, who was a director and shareholder of Profound, instructed the Plaintiff to pay RM600,000.00 to the Defendant. The Plaintiff subsequently paid RM600,000.00 to the Defendant and RM175,000.00 to Profound, leaving a balance of RM425,000.00.
[8] The Defendant claimed that the balance of RM425,000.00 belonged to him, asserting that he had brought the project to Profound and was entitled to the money based on his role at the time he was a director.
[9] The Defendant subsequently initiated legal proceedings against the Plaintiff in Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court, Case No WA- B52NCC-357-07/2020, seeking to recover the outstanding sum of RM425,000.00 ("KLSC Suit No. WA-B52NCC-357-07/2020").
[10] The Defendant then applied for Summary Judgment under O 14 of the Rules of Court 2012, and the Sessions Court granted summary judgment in favour of the Defendant on 8 January 2021 for the sum of RM425,000.00 in KLSC Suit No. WA-B52NCC-357-07/2020 ("Summary Judgment").
[11] The Plaintiff appealed against the Sessions Court's decision granting Summary Judgment through Kuala Lumpur High Court Appeal No. WA-12ANCC-10-01/2021 ("Summary Judgment Appeal"). The High Court dismissed the said Appeal on 9 April 2021 and affirmed the decision of the Sessions Court ("High Court Appeal Dismissal Decision").
[12] The Plaintiff did not appeal against the High Court Ap
